Share This

The subject of identical twins has been on my mind ever since I read a magnificently creepy thriller called Ice Twins by SK Treymayne – a pseudonym meant to sound like a woman, but it fact belonging to the novelist Sean Thomas. I read it because Thomas is in the new Spectator Life explaining how the pressures of the market push the writers of psychological thrillers towards female-sounding names – so he (sort of) turned into a woman to make Ice Twins a bestseller, which it duly became.

The book is tightly plotted, meticulously researched and I urge you read it – but what grabbed my attention was the subject of that research: identical twins. Lydia and Kirstie are monozygotic twin seven-year-olds (i.e., produced by a single fertilised egg). Lydia is killed when she falls off a balcony. Then, a few months later, Kirstie freaks out her already grief-stricken mother by saying: ‘Why do you keep calling me Kirstie, Mummy? I’m Lydia.’

This throws the mother into total panic because the girls were what you might call identical identical twins. Monozygotic siblings share the same DNA, which is an astonishing quirk of nature – but I’m sure you’ve all noticed that some identical twins look more like each other than others do. I have a friend whose identical twin brother looks uncannily like him – but only at a distance would you mistake one for the other and there’s nothing distinctive about their fraternal relationship. Ice Twins explains that there’s a spectrum of likeness between monozygotic twins (and also that dogs are sometimes better at telling the difference between ultra-identical twins than their parents are).

So this morning I was googling ‘identical twins’, and of course I was led immediately into the area of twin studies. Scientific researchers hunt down monozygotic twins relentlessly, because they provide uniquely valuable data in sorting out nature from nurture. (In particular, identical twins who were raised separately – of whom there are very few – are genetic gold dust.)

And I landed on this story, published yesterday by MuslimVillage.com, headed ‘Identical twin studies show homosexuality not genetic’.

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the US and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

‘At best genetics is a minor factor,’ says Dr Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

‘Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,’ Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. ‘If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.’

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. ‘No-one is born gay,’ he notes. ‘The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.’

Alarm bells started going off by the end of the second paragraph. Dr Whitehead isn’t at the cutting edge of genetic research. I looked him up and it turns out he’s a ‘Christian writer’ who has been accused by his critics of producing ‘junk science’. I’m not qualified to judge, but this report by New Scientist rubbishes his argument:

A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay brothers, including sets of twins, has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay. The study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before, one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8 …

‘It erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice,’ says study leader Alan Sanders of the NorthShore Research Institute in Evanston, Illinois.

Dr Whitehead’s ‘findings’ are being tossed around in a pool of counterknowledge, bogus information dressed up to look like fact. What I find fascinating about counterknowledge is that its raw material – conspiracy theories, urban myth, fake history and fake science – spreads from one marginalised community to another, even though those communities may despise each other. Conservative Muslims, Jews and Christians want to believe that homosexuality is environmental, because if it’s genetic that makes it difficult to justify their belief that it’s sinful. As soon as they find a study that reinforces their worldview, they jump on it, without asking too many questions about its methodology.

We’re going to see a lot more counterknowledge in the years to come, because digital technology makes it easier to apply an ‘authentic’ gloss to ideologically driven claims. The ghastly RT.com, Putin’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda vehicle, has never met a conspiracy theory it didn’t like (unless it involved the Kremlin, of course). And in a developing world where rigorous methodology is thin on the ground, its reach is increasing every day. I wonder whether its ‘journalists’ have Dr Neil Whitehead in their contacts books.

And liberals of all stripes want to believe that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable so that they can justify their sin. As soon as they find a study that reinforces their worldview, they jump
on it, without asking too many questions about its methodology.

And speaking of “alarm bells going off,” anyone who gives this piece even a cursory reading should experience such. The who premise of your piece is that studies on identical twins “prove” that homosexuality is not genetic. Yet the study you reference that “rubbishes” this argument does not use identical twins! In fact, the article to which you link goes out of its way to point out that non-identical twins, and other brothers were used.

Additionally, all that is necessary to prove the conjecture “Homosexuality is genetic” untrue is ONE counterexample–one example of genetically identical humans where one is a homosexual and one is not. One doesn’t have to be at the “cutting edge” of genetic research (or logic for that matter) to understand this. http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com

tom

Nope, there isn’t disproof that being gay isn’t a manipulation of genes, in fact there seems to be credence pointing towards that. The analogy on the twins study presented is ludicrous unless identical twins should also have identical fingerprints. So the twin study doesn’t prove that homosexuality isn’t genetic.

Also.
You have been reading distortions regarding the twins study. Look up the Youtube video that deals with it. The keywords are National Geographic twins homosexuality epigenetics. As for your supposed friend, he either does not exist, or he was always by sexual or he is a homosexual living a lie. One’s sexual orientation is not a choice, and I have every single major medical and psychological organization, thousands of professionals, decades of reputable research and millions of people to back me up on that. You have nothing but distortions lies and unfounded opinions.

Cristian Prundeanu

The Bible is anything but silent on homosexuality. You may have heard of what happened to Sodom. Also check out the first chapter of Romans and 6th chapter of 1st Corinthians in the New Testament. As to that website – no, according to the Bible you aren’t saved if you believe in Jesus yet persist in your sins.

mw006

Francis Collins, the head scientist of the human gnome project, supports the findings of Doctor Whitehead. In his book the Language of God he references the results of research on identical twins that show only a 20% greater likelihood of being homosexual. This is mild predisposition not predetermination. Alcoholism, by contrast, has been found to be 50 to 60% rooted in genetic makeup. The scientific corruption surrounding the etiology of homosexuality is coming from the side of the activists. They love to play the trump card that studies and science prove this and that, where knowledgeable and close examination of their references proves otherwise. Since its inception in the late 1970s, the movement has been a tissue of lies and deceptions. What must be understood is that at bottom the movement has a deep-seated need to rationalize homosexuality and other abnormal sexual behavior as healthy, normal and moral. Any individual, institution or information that threatens the security of that rationalization must be shut up and destroyed.

marcyharris92

Excellent explanation MW.

Firefly

Oh my gosh yes. It’s all about legitimacy, and people are sorely misled if they think it’s about anything else, especially at this point in history.

tom

Nope, there isn’t disproof that being gay isn’t a manipulation of genes, in fact there seems to be credence pointing towards that. The analogy on the twins study presented is ludicrous unless identical twins should also have identical fingerprints. So the twin study doesn’t prove that homosexuality isn’t genetic.

Also.
You have been reading distortions regarding the twins study. Look up the Youtube video that deals with it. The keywords are National Geographic twins homosexuality epigenetics. One’s sexual orientation is not a choice, and I have every single major medical and psychological organization, thousands of professionals, decades of reputable research and millions of people to back me up on that. You have nothing but distortions lies and unfounded opinions.

mw006

Why do so many people move in and out of the orientation then? Why is there such a vast amount of clinical experience confirming that homosexuality is significantly changeable?

Why are the rates so variable among different cultures at different points in history?

To deny any role to social environment and the shaping effect of personal experiences in the emergence of an individual’s sexuality is simply to believe what you want to believe.

tom

“Why do so many people move in and out of the orientation then?”

They don’t.

“Why is there such a vast amount of clinical experience confirming that homosexuality is significantly changeable?”

There aren’t.

“Why are the rates so variable among different cultures at different points in history?”

There is no one reputable study in history that states this.

“To deny any role to social environment and the shaping effect of personal experiences in the emergence of an individual’s sexuality is simply to believe what you want to believe.”

Again, there is not one shred of reputable evidence that indicates that one’s sexual orientation is decided post-birth, or that it is changeable. But, there is a lot of reputable evidence that indicates that one’s sexual orientation is decided pre-birth, and that it is NOT changeable. So, you are the one in denial here.

mw006

Dr. Nicholas Cumings:

“I have been a lifelong champion of
civil rights, including lesbian and gay rights. I [was] appointed as president
(1979) [of] the APA’s first Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues, which
eventually became an APA division. In that era the issue was a person’s right
to choose a gay life style, whereas now an individual’s choice not to be gay is
called into question because the leadership of the APA seems to have concluded
that all homosexuality is hard-wired and same-sex attraction is unchangeable.
My experience has demonstrated that there are as many different kinds of
homosexuals as there are heterosexuals. Relegating all same sex-attraction as
an unchangeable – an oppressed group akin to African-Americans and other
minorities – distorts reality. And past attempts to make sexual reorientation
therapy ‘unethical’ violates patient choice and makes the APA the de facto
determiner of therapeutic goals… The APA has permitted political correctness to
triumph over science, clinical knowledge and professional integrity. The public
can no longer trust organized psychology to speak from evidence rather than
from what it regards to be politically correct”.

In 2003, Dr Jeffrey Satinover, a
board-certified psychiatrist, testified before the Massachusetts Senate
Judicial Committee on this subject. He said that the National Health and Social
Life Survey (NHSLS) study of sexuality was completed in 1994 by a research team
from the University of Chicago and funded by almost every large government
agency and NGO with an interest in the AIDS epidemic.

“They studied every aspect of
sexuality, but among their findings is the following, which I’m going to quote
for you directly: ‘7.1 [to as much as 9.1] percent of the men [we studied, more
than 1,500] had at least one same-gender partner since puberty. … [But] almost
4 percent of the men [we studied] had sex with another male before turning
eighteen but not after. These men. . . constitute 42 percent of the total
number of men who report ever having a same gender experience.’ Let me put this
in context: Roughly ten out of every 100 men have had sex with another man at
some time – the origin of the 10% gay myth. Most of these will have identified
themselves as gay before turning eighteen and will have acted on it. But by age
18, a full half of them no longer identify themselves as gay and will never
again have a male sexual partner. And this is not a population of people
selected because they went into therapy; it’s just the general population.
Furthermore, by age twenty-five, the percentage of gay identified men drops to
2.8%. This means that without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four
boys who think they’re gay at age l6 aren’t by 25”.

In his 2003 testimony to the Massachusetts Senate, Dr. Satinover also said,

“A review of the research over many
years demonstrates a consistent 30-52% success rate in the treatment of
unwanted homosexual attraction. Masters and Johnson reported a 65% success rate
after a five-year follow-up. Other professionals report success rates ranging
from 30% to 70%”.

“Dr Reuben Fine, Director
for the New York Centre for Psychoanalytic Training, says in his 1987
publication ‘Psychoanalytic Theory, Male and Female Homosexuality:
Psychological Approaches’:
‘I have recently had occasion to review the result
of psychotherapy with homosexuals, and been surprised by the findings. It is
paradoxical that even though politically active homosexual groups deny the
possibility of change, all studies from Schrenck-Notzing on have found positive
effects, virtually regardless of the kind of treatment used…a considerable
percentage of overt homosexuals became heterosexual… If the patients were
motivated, whatever procedure is adopted, a large percentage will give up their
homosexuality. In this connection, public information is of the greatest
importance. The misinformation spread by certain circles that ‘homosexuality is
untreatable by psychotherapy’ does incalculable harm to thousands of men and
women.’ (pp.84-86)”

tom

Dr. Nicholas Cumings is a proponent and former practitioner of ex-gay therapy, a discredited pseudo-therapeutic practice. His opinions are not held by any major medical and physiological organization. The older he gets the worse he gets. He has made a mockery of himself.

That disqualifies any professional opinion he has regarding this.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover states that homosexuality is not a true illness, though it may be thought an illness in the spiritual sense of soul sickness innate to fallen human nature.

That disqualifies any professional opinion he has regarding this.

There were many psychoanalysts in the 80s who ignorantly believed that homosexuality could be cured, Dr. Reuben Fine was just another that has been proven wrong.

Do you have anything from more current and or reputable studies and or professionals, or just the same old debunked outdated ones?﻿

mw006

I see no point entering into further discussion with somebody who simply dismisses out of hand as disqualified or disreputable studies and professional views because it contradicts his belief. You make an ostrich with its head in the sand look open-minded.

So let’s try this, there are tens of thousands of people at minimum who have fathered or given birth to children who later become homosexual, and former homosexuals who have later fathered or given birth to children. How is this possible, if human sexual orientation is genetically hard-wired and immutable?

tom

Save your unfounded opinions regarding me. What I stated refutes any and all what you have stated, and you know it. Your close mindedness is almost akin to that of the Sadducees and pharisees that Jesus had issues with.

“So let’s try this, there are tens of thousands of people at minimum who have fathered or given birth to children who later become homosexual, and former homosexuals who have later fathered or given birth to children. How is this possible, if human sexual orientation is genetically hard-wired and immutable?”

That’s simple, epigenetics, bisexuality and homosexual DNA. Also, there has never been any “children who later become homosexual”.

You are clearly retarding yourself.﻿

Ponderer247

tom, I would like to point out that epigenetics is actually in favour of people who argue that homosexuality is based on environmental and intrauterine effects and freedom of will (a.k.a. choice) and that it’s not hard-wired in genes.

So with your comment “That’s simple, epigenetics, bisexuality and homosexual DNA.” you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Accusing someone else of retardation, while not understanding the words you use yourself, nor backing up many of the claims you make and just saying mw006 is wrong and in denial after denying what mw006 said, comes off as foolish and hypocritical.

And before you think I’m just spilling my guts here without knowing where this discussion is all about, I would like to add that I’ve read all the comments of you and mw006 concerning this topic. Including the absurdly long (and boring, yet worthwhile) post of mw006 on Dr. Nicholas Cumings.

Kind regards, Ponderer247

tom

Thanks for your opinion, and a link that leads to nothing.

Any educated person knows that epigenetics is not new, but is being more closely scrutinised. Again, your so called “random site on Diabetes Type II” is useless.

Do you know the difference between pre and post-uterine environment?﻿

Ponderer247

tom, the link is working fine.

The website is not useless, by saying so you discard actual science accepted by the scientific community. Besides the fact you don’t directly rebut the statements I made, because you most likely are unable to.

Yes, I do know the difference. Is that something you don’t understand either besides epigenetics? I can explain it to you if you don’t understand.

dawg

You’re 100% correct, I read through this string of comments; clearly, all Tom does is discredit the valid scientific research with slander or disagreement with personal beliefs. His reasoning behind not accepting someone’s research is because that individual has work pertaining to Christianity. If this is the outlook you wish to perceive the dilemma, might as well disregard the Gay scientists and liberal-minded. He’s blatantly in self-denial… Even if there is a slight bias (which is entirely possible), the findings are too outrageous to be pulled out of nowhere. Sure as hell that these scientists didn’t make up accounts of others moving away from homosexuality or Twins with sexual orientation differences. To deny it all shows how ignorant and stubborn you are to AT LEAST partially accept a fact.

Thomas Maher

He also is not honest that the over percentage of liberals in academia in the Social Sciences (265 liberals to 1 conservative) is corrupting the peer review process and biasing scientific research to follow activism. We are getting to the point of not being able to trust scientific discovery as objective. Academia has become the new ‘church’ waging an inquisition against anyone who questions their biased methodology. Tom is just a blind follower!!!

Jonathan Besler

“The analogy on the twins study presented is ludicrous unless identical twins should also have identical fingerprints. So the twin study doesn’t prove that homosexuality isn’t genetic.”

By your “logic”, since even twin studies don’t prove anything given there are inherent differences between the most identical twins, how much more are all studies invalid?

John

I don’t think it matters honestly. We are all born with corrupted natures. Whether it’s homosexuality or just the desire to have sex with any beautiful woman that a man meets. The desire is not the sin. Giving into the desire or dwelling on that desire is the sin. I would counsel anyone who honestly feels they are only attracted to the same sex to be celibate. No need to argue. Psychopaths and Sociopaths are born that way too but we don’t excuse their actions because of it. Man is responsible regardless of his impulses. For the most part our impulses originating in the flesh are due to sin. That is why the bible talks about our war with the flesh.

And how do we know that your so called “report by new scientist” isn’t some biased buffoon either? How are we supposed to utilize any research data as argumentative proof if everyone ha some sort of flaws? Oh that’s right, because people make mistakes.. only Jesus was perfect guys

Well spotted, Damian Thompson. The combox of course draws out creepy pseudo-Christian homophobic comment. These voluntary scribes could earn some pay if they put their venomous talents at Mr Putin’s disposal.

Firefly

I find that an odd statement to make, given that these comments are arguing about the data and the logic of the writer’s argument. Ooooh, data and logic- so nice when it’s coming from your camp, so “creepy” and “homophobic” when someone else uses it.

Nah, I confute their bad logic and invented facts again and again — especially the ex-gay cultists.

And it is not liberals who argue that gayness is genetic and unchangeable, but the Vatican, which calls it an innate instinct or a pathological constitution that is “incurable.” I don’t think gays worry about genes — born that way just means “as far back as I remember” and “I did not choose to be gay” etc.

Firefly

I think for all the talk of conspiracies and counter-knowledge, this fits more into that pool than the study by Whitehead. Honestly, whether or not homosexuality is biological would have basically no impact on homosexuality as a theological matter, since most religious people who take issue with it would argue that really being attracted to the same sex does not mean it’s okay to act on that attraction. So we hardly have any reason to manipulate the data or cling to poorly-done studies- although it would make our arguments a bit easier if it were not genetic, it wouldn’t impact things nearly as much as the writer thinks it would.

And you want to talk alarm bells? This guy’s saying that a skilled scientist with a degree in biochemistry and statistics- both relevant fields in this case- should be dismissed because he’s a Christian and the report originally came from a right-wing news site. Sounds likes someone thinks their biases have more weight than the facts.

Tahir Nasser

How did you manage to publish this article. It is so scientifically illiterate it’s actually painful.

Nope, there isn’t disproof that being gay isn’t a manipulation of genes, in fact there seems to be credence pointing towards that. The analogy on the twins study presented is ludicrous unless identical twins should also have identical fingerprints. So the twin study doesn’t prove that homosexuality isn’t genetic.

Recommender of Books

I’m not going to go into the issues with dismissing scientific studies and opinions simply because of the beliefs of those that present it, especially when the data still holds up. That said, please post an original comment, rather than copy-pasting your first comment again and again. Doing that is much more likely to get yourself labeled as “trolling”, or comment spamming, and is not good etiquitte. If you must, refer to a previous comment you have made further up the chain.

Marcus

If being gay isn’t a choice, then how do you explain bisexuals? Bisexuals choose whether to be gay or straight on a given night. Sometimes they choose to be BOTH if they are in a threesome! So, BOOM! Your being gay isn’t a choice argument is easily destroyed.

pobodysnerfect

Couldn’t the 11% figure be explained by genetic mutations or epigenetics that affect one twin but not the other? That way, it would still prove a biological basis, and it would account for that discrepancy. Some monozygotic twins are born with the same genetic mutations, and others are not. I believe it is called discordance, and it would explain why twins with identical DNA have different diseases or even sexual orientations.

NMCoug

So, you’re saying that twin studies (the most reliable genetic studies available) with thousands of participants are junk science? And you’re going to back it up with no evidence?

Timo

Everybody is born sinful, so homosexuals being born that way does not take away the fact that it is sinful.

Autumn

Obviously, your opinion, views or thoughts lean towards the belief that acting out such behavior, particularly discussed here, is justifiable given one study that contradicts the other study on the same issue, which does not do away with the study that does prove homosexuality is not nor can be genetic if one identical twin is gay, yet the other is not. Actually, the same claim you try to use to disprove the identical twin study, you than use to endorse the study trying to prove it is genetic. Your article is hypocritical and obviously your thoughts towards those who recognize it’s a behavioral issue, not genetic where this behavior would than be made excusable and justifiable, not the individual’s choice and fault, is most definitely wrong! Thanks☺

Mary Ann

There are no advantages that I can think of that make it advantageous to be gay, so why would anyone choose it?

Autumn

Well, there are no advantages to a lot of things people do choose and do all the time… like drugs, over spending, unhealthy eating, and the list can go on and on. The fact is, it is endorsed by many people viewing it is okay, beneficial as an act of being inlove… so much so that many living this way are not heeding the consequences that do come. Also, the fact it’s made excusable by genetics only further causes harm to those who do live this way and are in great need to repent of it as I most certainly know it to be.

Jeremy Buchanan

There’s more to genetics than genes. Epigenetics can fill the gap.

Ananas Merveilleux

Religious nutters and the quackery of “reparative therapy” aside, I do think there should be legitimate research into the causes of this — but with the intent of reverse-engineering it. Never one to shy away from controversy, the Breitbart phenomenon Milo Yiannopoulos has said in numerous interviews that he would welcome a “cure” for being gay because it bothers him that he is biologically incapable of settling down with a nice girl and starting a family. (Milo doesn’t support gay parenting for moral and political reasons.)

Yet science has its hands tied by left-wing politics, which have proven themselves to be just as stifling, if not more so, than the various Inquisitions of the church. Science “treats” or “cures” or “fixes” all sorts of things which are not life-threatening all the time. Cosmetic surgery comes to mind. No one ever died from having a big nose or a double-chin, yet there is a multibillion-dollar industry dedicated to doing what else but changing that which bothers the patient, even though it’s purely for superficial reasons. So why shouldn’t science figure out a way to make a gay man straight? Politics should never determine the course of scientific truth. That goes for religion as well as the bizarre tautologies of leftist Lysenkoism.

The arguably greater tragedy of all this is that the left is a never-satiated monster which has already begun extrapolating the (politically-determined) decision to delist homosexuality from the list of “mental illnesses” in the DSM in 1973, towards a greater movement to “deconstruct” the very idea that such a thing as mental illness exists at all. In doing so, this “neuro-diversity” camp would apply the same scientific silencing to finding a cure for, i.e. bipolar illness, schizophrenia and autism that they already do to finding a cure for homosexuality. Everything is “socially determined” according to these people, and anyone who says that it’s biological is a eugenicist calling for a modern Reich.

Not only that, but such illnesses as we recognize them now would be, like sexual orientation, mere “differences” to be celebrated as “identities” rather than “disorders.” If such a thing as “bipolar pride” or “autism pride” were ever to become as mainstream as “gay pride” has, it would leave no hope for those who do suffer from mental illness to fix what’s wrong with them — because only they would see it as being a “problem.” They would simply be required to accept it as who they are, and embrace their “uniqueness” much like homosexuals do upon “coming out.”

This kind of cult mentality is dangerous. It’s the flip-side of the anti-vaccination movement. It does not allow for freedom of choice and, at worst, is a detriment to the public health. We shouldn’t allow the lunacy of the social constructionist left to wage their own ideological war on science and cause harm to people who just don’t want to be in pain anymore.

Autumn

Legitimate research into the causes of it…It’s no surprise that those who reject the Holy Bible believe there’s some type of cause other than man himself being fallen, desiring evil or naturally unable to be sincerely good choosing and ultimately pleasing God who is most certainly holy, perfect, and just. Given this view, man can’t possibly be to blame for the evil acts he does commit, and it also leaves many questions unanswered relying on science to prove the answer hoping it contradicts the Holy Bible. When it doesn’t and the science proves the humanist or this view to be wrong, even if there’s the slightest possibility of it, than there’s something wrong with the studies or research because it doesn’t provide the answer the humanist or this type of person wants. So they continue to reject and reject believing the Holy Bible is not true and those who believe it are nutty, brainwashed and all the views we could think of that the man who rejects the Holy Bible, specifically God, does have.